Administrator:
The fact that the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension edition is certainly more then enough reason to reject the Revision.
A literal adherence to the 1942 Sluzhebnik is exactly what many Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics (priests and laymen) have been praying for

Resp. - This is a basic disagreement of philosophy. I am not a “liturgical literal fundamentalist,” and I do not judge my liturgical work by the Administrator’s yardstick.

Administrator:
The Liturgical Instruction (which does apply directly to us) states: “In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.”

Response - Apparently the same Congregation thinks that our translation is faithful to the Orthodox tradition.

Administrator:
Father David seems to speak of the 1942 Sluzhebnik as if it were contemptible
Response. - He has conveniently ignored what I actually said:
“I will state that what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church.” I go on to say that it was meant only for the Eastern Catholic Church and not for the Orthodox - is this contempt????? Please!

Administrator:
The translation of the 1942 recension into the vernacular has no bearing on the idea that the presbyteral prayers should be prayed aloud.

Response. - This misses the point of what I said. If the Liturgy is in the vernacular, there is more reason to say the prayers aloud. Why say prayers aloud that the congregation would not understand (if they were in Church Slavonic.) Interestingly, a strict reading of the (Slavonic) rubrics would not call for the silent recitation of prayers.

Adminstrator:
As I have noted numerous times in these discussions, why mandate where liberty will serve?
Response. - Do you mean any priest can do what he likes?

Admiinstrator:
Surely the Spirit will lead. If, in a generation or so, the custom has become widespread and accepted across all of Byzantium then it can be documented in the liturgical books as an organic development.
Response. - It has already been widely done for at least two generations in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches (which the Administrator tries mightily to minimalize). Does the Administrator think that liturgical history begins with his experiences?

Administrator -
My story may or may not have been a banal but it certainly does show that even a four year old child understands that a “baggage man” can be either a man or a women.
Response. - My observation was not on what the child understood, but on the fact that the story is amusing only because the word”Man” is ambiguous.

Administrator:
Father David is either being modest or disingenuous. He alone is originator of almost all of the rubrical changes. I have no doubt that some were readily received and embraced by the commission while others were accepted only after much persuasion on Father David’s part.

Response - To read the Administrator’s responses is like riding a roller coaster. At one moment he is flattering - extolling my talents. The next minute he is saying that anything that I’ve proposed should be wiped off the face of the earth. Then up again, the Commission was convinced by my arguments, then down - not one of the faithful or clergy wants the translation. Up - I do great work for the Church, down - everything that I do is my personal opinion and not part of the true tradition. The Administrator sets the rules, and the rules assure that whether I succeed or fail in my liturgical vocation, I will fail, because if I succeed, it’s only my view and should be rejected by all. However, he missed the original point of my message - whatever my influence within the commission - and I can assure you, the Commission is certainly NOT a “David Petras Fan Club” - the work of the Commission is NOT my exclusive work - it is a work of the Church, as I said, ” [This project] was initiated by the Archbishop of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it was carried out by a committee of experts and pastors, it has been accepted by the Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, IT IS NOT SOMEONE’S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.
Much of what the Administrator reacts to is what was done in Passaic, of which I had absolutely no part. And if Passaic priests label it the “Petras” or “Petras/Pataki” Liturgy, it’s only because they, like the Administrator, want to “dis” it.

Administrator:
Father David’s crusade (to use his term) to mandate the priest to pray the presbyteral prayers aloud and to remove litanies predates the current effort to produce a new edition of the Liturgicon.
Already in the people’s edition we see some of the Prayers of the Anaphora other presbyteral prayers presented to be taken aloud (if not in specific rubric then in the way the page is arranged). We also see both truncated and missing litanies

Response. - This gives the impression that before my time, everyone said all the litanies and that I was responsible for people’s books that removed them. This, of course, is pure claptrap. The litanies were not said for a couple of generations before I became a priest. Commissions on which I served added litanies. [Of course, this does not meet the Administrator’s “liturgical literal fundamentalism,“ but, to be honest, I don’t care about his judgment anymore.]
As I’ve already explained on numerous occasions, the presbyteral prayers alone can restore the anamnetic portions of the Liturgy for the people. [Please do not bother me with that silliness that they can read them along in their “missals.”]

Administrator:
Had he not been part of the commission I have no doubt that the commission would have produced a new Liturgicon that would contain minimal updates to the 1964/1965 edition and that there would have been no rubrical changes (I believe that was the original charge from Metropolitan Judson).

Response. - Before my time, Archbishop Dolinay constituted a liturgical commission dedicated to restoring the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik. So, it is not so clear you would have gotten a minimal updating to the 1965 edition (which is not the norm for the whole Ruthenian recension, as you otherwise seem to think.) The original charge from Metropolitan Judson was only to produce a truly Eastern Liturgicon that could be standard for the whole metropolia. The Administrator will claim that we already have that standard - the 1965 Liturgicon. However, it was derailed and compromised. Nor do I hold necessarily to a complete literary fundamentalism in regard to it - though I do not hold it contemptible (cf. above).

Adminiistrator:
Prominent Orthodox hierarchs from two different jurisdictions who are part of the Ruthenian recension have publicly spoken of the desire for a common translation.

Response. I don’t doubt it. If it’s public, can you name who, where and when? I myself want a common translation, but to demand it is a good way to postpone indefinitely any liturgical work, which is probably what some on the Byzantine Forum want.

Dear Father David,

As I understand it, the Administrator's "yardstick" is the official texts (including rubrics) as set forth in the Slavonic books published by Rome. Like many of us, the Administrator thinks that nothing other than an accurate, careful, complete translation of those books will do. (without alteration to the rubrics, inclusive language, reorganization or any other hint at revision).

What "yardstick" is the commission using?

Nick

Nicholas, what was the yardstick used by Rome, in setting forth their Slavonic books?

Dear djs,

Very good question. There is documentation available for some of their work.

But whatever their yardstick (becuase it was the normative text that Rome published for our Churches) it is the only text (words and rubrics) that can unite our Church. Any other revision, reorganization, abbreviation, "improvement" will divide the Church.

Nick

Without attempting to match eloquence for eloquence, let’s see if a few thoughts might cut through the discussion and reduce it to a manageable level.

It is obvious that one viewpoint wants – at least for a significant period of time – the Divine Liturgy (in English or whatever the vernacular might be) as it was given to us in c. 1941, and that one ground for this desire is that this version of the Liturgy has never been given any possibility in the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh Metropolitanate.

It is equally obvious that the opposite point of view does not want any possibility of return to the Divine Liturgy as promulgated in c. 1941 and published in English in 1965. So far as I can tell, the reason given by the proponents of immediate and rapid change is that the 1941/1965 Liturgy is somehow not suitable. It might help if they would be more specific in telling the rest of us what it is, particularly, that they dislike about the Ruthenian Recension version of the Divine Liturgy.

The Administrator reminds us of the responsibility to fidelity to the Orthodox tradition. Father David responds that apparently the Congregation thinks that the new improved version is faithful to the Orthodox tradition. There are two problems with Father David’s position:
a) it is, of course, possible for the Oriental Congregation to be mistaken – it has happened before even in the history of this relatively young dicastery;
b) appealing to a document which no one is allowed to read and verify is unconvincing.

Nothing whatever indicates that the 1941 Ruthenian Recension service book was intended only for Catholics – and I have seen the book (in Slavonic) in use at Orthodox altars.

With regard to the desire for the recitation or chanting of the presbyteral prayers aloud: what evidence is there that a majority of the faithful in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia actively want this change?

Father David asks “Do you mean any priest can do what he likes?” Well, that has certainly tended to be the case!

There may be a disagreement of fact here: has there been a study among, say, Orthodox in the USA to determine just how wide-spread the recitation or chanting of the presbyteral prayers aloud is among them?

Might we not all agree that, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would have said, what is important is the draft translation/recasting, rather than the identity of who proposed what to whom?

There were certainly some places – but a minority – where more of the litanies survived than they did in others (Hazelton comes to mind, for example). It is also true that in more recent decades one could find priests who restored litanies which had been dropped for a time.

Father David reports that “Archbishop Dolinay constituted a liturgical commission dedicated to restoring the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik.” That is not altogether surprising; it fits what is known of Archbishop Thomas and the opinions he expressed in print. But might we know more of this “back to 1905 L’viv” project?

The mention of Orthodox hierarchs who would like a common translation with the Greek-Catholics includes the OCA (who actually approached Pittsburgh with such a proposal before the publication of the 1965 book), the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, and the Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdiction (this can be verified with Metropolitan Nicholas and Archbishop Vsevolod).

I see no evidence to cause me to believe that Greek-Catholics contributing to the forum want an end to liturgical study. I certainly would not support such an idea. What I do want is the patience to wait, for instance, until Father Taft finishes his book (and he is hard at work doing just that right now) and some other materials are more generally known. Source materials which are inaccessible even 15 years ago are available now, and they merit close attention.

Incognitus

Dear Father David,

I find your response here somewhat thin.

Which Orthodox hierarchs looked at the revised revision of the liturgical revision and offered their comments and advisements prior to sending said revision to Rome?

Who in the Oriental Congregation offered the text to any Orthodox hierarch for their comments and counsels prior to receiving this latest revision?

Is there anything of substance that was done to insure that we have not drifted any further away liturgically, from our Orthodox root.

I, personally, am aware of the response of at least three Orthodox hierarchs to the current Passaic liturgy. The responses were not what I would call enthusiastic.

Eventually we will know what the Orthodox think of this one, regardless of what the Oriental Congregation thinks or says, now or then.

Eli

Dear Father David,

you wrote,
'"the work of the Commission is NOT my exclusive work - it is a work of the Church"'

I consider myself part of the "Church." I take great offense to your implication of me in this dreadful offence.

We must fully express our Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church through Holy, Pure, and Complete Divine Liturgy. No abreviations! No Evil Inclusive Language Changes! No Claptrap!

By YOUR participation in this great crime, you are severely hurting the the Church in many ways, including and especially Vocations.

Dear InCogNeat3's,

I think what Father David means is the "clerical Church". It is the work of the Archbishop and Bishops, and their appointed committee. (All priests, all men, all like minded individuals, if we are to believe that they all agreed to this fiasco.) The idea the the bishops and priests constitute the Church, is a common mistake, I call "clericalism".

The committee for the revision of the Liturgy clearly does not speak for the Church, in the sense of the "people of God". Even the committee will have to admit, that there is certainly nothing approaching a concensus of the faithful.

There is absolutely no general movement for the revision of our Liturgy. (We won't even mention the re-writing of the chant!) It is only the imposition of a clerical elite.

I am still hoping that the Archbishop will come to his senses, and start listening to the people. We are the Church, after all.

This revised Liturgy is not the "work of the Church". Fr. David is wrong on that point.

Nick

Since you don't know the yardstick of the Roman edition, why do you feel the need to cling to it with what Fr. David calls fundamental literalism? That is puzzling to me. Especially since your comment on unity is, as you must know from reading this forum, incorrect. You might also like to consider: there must be some reasons that Bishops had reservations about the Roman edition; there must be some reasons that most of our parishes do not use it. I don't have a clear idea of what the reasons are, I simply think that they exist. And their existence immediately provides a response to incognitus's suggestion (that so nicely begs the question: who doesn't want what?) The goal is an edition with a fuller and richer practice that will be used.

InCogNeat3's: You are probably unaware that few if any parishes - Orthodox or Greek Catholic - celebrate the complete Divine Liturgy. I don't think anyone else is recommending the "Complete Divine Liturgy. No abbreviations!". But I think we all agree on "No Evil Inclusive Language Changes!". Or did you mean all inclusive language changes?

djs writes that "there must be some reasons that Bishops had reservations about the Roman edition; there must be some reasons that most of our parishes do not use it. I don't have a clear idea of what the reasons are, I simply think that they exist."

Of course there were reasons that several bishops were, ah, "hesitant" about the Roman edition. Some of those reasons were:

a) Bishop Basil Takach: the Exarchate was still in the throes of the schism of the 1930s over celibacy and World War II was on; he did not need any further disturbance. When World War II ended Bishop Basil had serious cancer and his most urgent need was for a coadjutor, whom he obtained in the person of Bishop Daniel.

b) Bishop Daniel in a reasonable amount of time began the process of implementing the Roman edition. That in turn may have stimulated others who felt that he had betrayed them in his personal life to oppose anything of "his" that they could.

c) Bishop Nicholas strongly and emotionally felt that he wanted a liturgical praxis as far removed from that of Eastern Orthodoxy as possible - as he once said, he wanted "to take the grease out of the Greeks". He also regarded this issue as one of loyalty to the bishop (himself) and did not hesitate to penalize any priest who differed with him on the subject.

d) Archbishop Stephen felt that the Metropolia had already gone through more than its share of turmoil, that the turmoil which hit the Catholic Church in the wake of Vatican II promised further trouble, and that the liturgical issue was best served by keeping the lid on and making no changes in the existing praxis.

e) Bishop Emil of Parma promulgated the Ordo and made a serious attempt to introduce it. His colleagues among the bishops managed to stop him - and destroy his enthusiasm for much of anything in the process.

Want more?

In the parishes, most priests were becoming increasingly overworked because of the shortage of clergy (brought on in significant part by a clergy malaise, not to use stronger expressions). Some did not wish to oppose the bishops, some considered it impractical to try to implement the changes which the Roman edition required in the face of episcopal opposition. All of them noticed that Rome continued to appoint bishops who were opposed to the Roman edition of the Liturgy, so Rome does not have entirely clean hands in the matter. We have all noticed that many clergy left, and the number of seminarians dropped unbelievably in a very few years.

So that might give some (not all) of the reasons which contributed to the endless postponement.

Incognitus

Yes. Every possible scrap of information.

Because any opposing institutional memory in this Church has been silenced and the rest of us don't have one. A memory of what was, I mean.

Eli

I agree.

This post of incognitus was very illuminating.
This eariler comment ...
seemed not only not obvious, but difficult even to regard as correct. Through the prism of the past, however, - the inaction or counter-action of Bishops Basil, Daniel (who you most posters here know to mention wrote to Rome for numerous changes in the practice), Nicholas, Stephen, etc. - I can understand the temptation to regard the motives and actions of the present IELC and Synod as more of the same. But from Fr. David we understand differently.

We all should understand that we are unquestionably working to restore Eastern practices. That English texts and music are now readily available for propers for the Divine Liurgy, Vespers, and Matins is a hugh step forward. Ditto Pre-sanctified, Bridegroom matins, St. Andrew's canon, etc. When I was young, this material was at best, very hard to come by. Now it's just there, and I am elated by this progress.

So the context of whatever is happening must - to be fair - be viewed in the context of restoration and Easternization - rather than Westernization (Latinization or Americanization), simple adherence to the status quo, or unbridled modernization. This context seems to me to be crystal clear; it is the decisive answer to every slippery slope phobia.

So what of the Liturgical Restoration itself? The status quo will not be maintainted in this climate of restoration. For those who, as the Administrator's recent comments suggtested, have been longing for the past 65 years for the implementation of the 1941 edition - well, nothing else will do. But as incognitus illustrates, this edition has never had traction among us. The reasons he gave vary, but, consistently, there was always a reason. I could speculate - just guessing - about more. Was this seen as a Russification that some young Congregation in Rome was attempting to impose on us, after too much from Rome already? Were we fairly repesented in this work? Our Bishop, priests, laity ( :p )? At what point did we become interested in unity with the UGCC?

Over the past 65 years it appears that this Roman edition has become the path not taken. (Although the idea that that has made all the difference - e.g., for the seminary ignores too much other experience to be accepted.) Imagine then the difficulty in trying, after all of this history, to implement it.

This problem makes much clearer, at least to me, the wisdom of setting out to make to a new edition that represents both a restoration of Eatern practice, and an edition that we just might actually use. Actually, a pretty profund idea, that Fr. David attributed to Metr. Judson.

djs inadvertently raises an important question for discussion - just what constitutes a restoration of Eastern practice?

As for the Ukrainians, it should suffice to note that in Church-Slavonic the Ruthenians were using the 1905 L'viv service-book which according to Father David Archbishop Thomas Dolinay wanted to restore. So using the same books as the Ukrainians was not an issue.

Incognitus

I am not sure that it ever was. But the idea of using a particular book so as to facilitate unity with the UGCC - I am not sure when, if ever, that idea gained traction.